Robert “Bobby” Papazian

Carrie Jones

Jan 04, 2026

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY

We always welcome letter submissions to The Bar Harbor Story.

For details on our policy, please visit our about page and scroll down or just visit here.

As with all newspapers, the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints expressed by the writers of letters to the editor and included here do not necessarily reflect the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints or official policies of The Bar Harbor Story. Similarly, we do not fact check those beliefs, opinions, or viewpoints that are espoused in letters to the editor.

We do not have an exclusive submission policy. That means if your letter is published here, it is fine by us if it’s also published in other places and vice versa.

All the past letters to the editor can be found on the Substack site here.

---

Correcting the Record.

I write to recommend corrections to your article published on December 27 that covered Mr. Sidman’s Rule 80B appeal from the June 24 Board of Appeals hearing. I fear that you conceptually misunderstand the purpose of our appeal, which challenges the permit issued by the town, to the town, to allow the disembarkation of up to 1,000 passengers per day at the town pier. Mr. Sidman is not appealing from the town’s contract with American Cruise Lines, which you note at the outset of your article has a fleet of ships that typically hold 100-200 passengers and tender 30 passengers at a time. As our focus is on the permit itself and not ACL, I did not “write[] that the town allowing itself (via permits) to disembark American Cruise Line cruise ship passengers” creates congestion. Although the ACL contract is relevant to our claims, it is the permit that the town issued to itself that we are challenging. The ACL contract is nonexclusive, and together with the permit, allows the town to disembark 800-900 additional passengers per day before reaching the daily limit. Similarly, the logistics of ACL’s tendering practices are not relevant to our appeal, because the permit being challenged would allow a different tender ship to disembark 1,000 passengers at one time. The preface of your article and focus on ACL appears to understate the harm the Town’s actions have on Mr. Sidman and his business.

This narrative feeds into the town’s repeated attempts to evade scrutiny of its actions by minimizing the injuries to Mr. Sidman. But the heart of Mr. Sidman’s appeal is not his standing to appeal, which courts have repeatedly recognized. As we have stated in our briefs, Mr. Sidman is not participating in these actions just to participate. Rather, Mr. Sidman is challenging the town government’s attempts to ignore the Land Use Ordinance in favor of its own fiats. With no public notice, the town applied for a permit to disembark cruise ship passengers at the town pier and the code enforcement officer issued the permit on the same day the application was received. The permit does not indicate what use allows the town to disembark cruise passengers at the town pier. In fact, there is no allowed use in the Shoreland General Development I District that allows the disembarkation of cruise ship passengers directly into the downtown. The only use that allows that activity is a “Passenger Terminal” use, which is only permitted in the Maritime Activities District, and which is a far more appropriate place to conduct such resource intensive activities. Within the Shoreland General Development I District, the town has refused to say what use it is relying on to disembark cruise passengers. Is it a “pier”? A “dock”? A “wharf”? A “breakwater”? Is it “temporary” or “permanent”? Does the town have the necessary approvals for any of these generic uses? Does that mean that property owners in the other sixteen districts that allow such generic uses – including landlocked and residential districts – are also entitled to a permit to disembark up to 1,000 cruise ship passengers per day? If so, what is the purpose of a “Passenger Terminal”? We don’t know because the town, aided by the board of appeals, continues to evade the questions. Application of the voter-enacted ordinance was supposed to be a transparent process, but we’ve been met with nothing but stonewalling by the Town.

Separately, our treatment by the board of appeals at the June hearing should concern everyone, regardless of how they feel about cruise ships. First, the $1,500 filing fee to bring an administrative appeal to the board applies to “residential” and “small commercial” properties, which the town pier is neither, as it is publicly owned, publicly used, and tax exempt. This exorbitant fee only serves to insulate town actions from scrutiny and disenfranchise citizens, as these fees have nearly doubled in the past year by decree of the town council. And what does someone get for their $1,500 fee to appear before what is supposed to be a fair and impartial board of appeals? Two minutes to make your case, no opportunity to rebut the other side, no engagement or dialogue, no regard for the rules or due process, and palpable disdain by the board. The board’s conduct should be concerning to every resident and business owner in Bar Harbor.

I also share Mr. Sidman’s frustration that local media outlets only appear to tell one side of the story. The town selectively publishes updates on the town website to characterize its victories and omit its losses. For instance, you would never know that Mr. Sidman’s standing has been adjudicated and upheld by both Federal and State courts.

That the town continues to want to relitigate Mr. Sidman’s standing at every turn is a problem of the town’s own making. Back in July, the MDIslander published a “summary of active cruise ship litigations” that only reported the one-sided descriptions adopted by the town. As a result, readers get a distorted view of the issues at stake in these litigations.

This lopsided coverage inevitably puts a target on Mr. Sidman’s back and results in harassment, vulgar stickers around town, and vilification online.

Don’t get me wrong, I am very grateful for the service you and Shaun provide Mount Desert Island. I think the residents are better informed and impressively engaged in public affairs in large part because you exist. And I am personally appreciative of your coverage anytime there are rescued or missing animals. I am just trying to share my perspective.

Sincerely,

Bobby Papazian

Mr. Papazian is Mr. Sidman’s attorney.

---

Follow us on Facebook. And as a reminder, you can easily view all our past stories and press releases here.